Toronto Concord Sky | 299m | 85s | Concord Adex | Kohn Pedersen Fox

Strange Advance said:
I'm going ostensively against the grain again here and saying this is an improvement over the previous design, but nowhere near the quality of the extraordinary first one. I found the second one a plain, ungainly blue-glass slab. I favour the contrast to the glass of the white lines and balconies in this last iteration.
Click to expand...

I agree and don't understand why everyone seems to regard the previous design as self-evidently better. It was extremely plain glass and was likely to end up being value engineered and feature a bunch of spandrel in reality and not look as clean and crisp as in the rendering anyway. The definition on this one is better IMO, although I agree it does look cheap and junky — but the previous design was not better from my perspective.
 
Best design was undoubtedly the first one, no question. Debating the last two iterations just feels pointless to me, since the original was tall, slender, and felt like a NYC-style supertall. The problem is fundamentally with the new massing/building shape, so it will never be able to look as good as the first design. If I had to choose between the second and third (final) designs, I'd probably go with the one we're getting only because it is a residential building, and a plain facade with wraparound blue glass signals office tower to me usually.
 
Without fritted balcony glass to add some design emphasis,
this one is going to end up looking worse than Aura across the street.
 
This was my favorite version

Screen-Shot-2018-04-04-at-12.56.45-PM.png
ysl-residences-aerial.jpg
ysl-residences-exterior.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • ysl-residences-exterior.jpeg
    ysl-residences-exterior.jpeg
    100.2 KB · Views: 147
They probably would have built this sexy skyscraper if the city would have given them the height. Now we're stuck with wide hips Bertha !
 
cd concept said:
They probably would have built this sexy skyscraper if the city would have given them the height. Now we're stuck with wide hips Bertha !
Click to expand...
No they wouldn't. Because Cresford still would have gone belly up. And Concord would have taken over with something substantially subpar. All the allowance for letting this tower shadow Allan Gardens would have given Concord a bit more height to play around with. And that's it.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
No they wouldn't. Because Cresford still would have gone belly up. And Concord would have taken over with something substantially subpar. All the allowance for letting this tower shadow Allan Gardens would have given Concord a bit more height to play around with
Click to expand...
I can't understand why the city didn't go with the first rendering if hieght is an issue because of Allen Gardens . The first rendering of the two slim unique condo towers could have done the job. And could have been widened up more if chopped down to not shadow the park. The new rendering is as wide as an office tower not mentioning the height factor shadowing other proposals.
 
cd concept said:
I can't understand why the city didn't go with the first rendering if hieght is an issue because of Allen Gardens . The first rendering of the two slim unique condo towers could have done the job. And could have been widened up more if chopped down to not shadow the park. The new rendering is as wide as an office tower not mentioning the height factor shadowing other proposals.
Click to expand...
The developer-that-was switched architects midway I gather?

crumplescotch said:
Are almost permanent tents in Allen Gardens count as 'shadowing'? Asking for a friend.
Click to expand...
OT: Same argument could be made for the trees that grow there. And temporary structures are temporary structures, no matter how long standing they've been there or will be there as far as I am aware.
 
Last edited:
That roof notch is very distinctive, even from a distance:

Toronto Model 11-04-21 Night.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top